Knauss v. Major

Michigan Supreme Court

Knauss v. Major

69 N.W. 489, 111 Mich. 239, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 595

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 18, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 N.W. 489 (Knauss v. Major) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Knauss v. Major, 69 N.W. 489, 111 Mich. 239, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 595 (Mich. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The defendant contends that the warranty or guaranty was of collection merely, and that plaintiff cannot recover because he has not exhausted his legal remedy .by suit against the maker. We cannot concur in this view. There was testimony on which to base the instruction to the jury. We think that the case was properly left to them upon the theory of a warranty, and that the plaintiff was under no obligation to prosecute the collection of the note. Huntington v. Wellington, 12 Mich. 10; Clark v. Roberts, 26 Mich. 506; Taylor v. Soper, 53 Mich. 96. The representations had no reference to the financial condition of the maker of the note in the future. They referred to his condition at that time, and were positive that he was then financially responsible, and that the note was then good. They constituted a warranty of the then financial condition of the maker, and, if relied on by plaintiff, entitled him to recover. ’

Other question's were raised upon the admissibility of evidence and charge of the court, but we find nothing in them important to mention. The sole issue of fact was whether the representations were made, and this issue was submitted to the jury in a brief and clear charge.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The defendant contends that the warranty or guaranty was of collection merely, and that plaintiff cannot recover because he has not exhausted his legal remedy .by suit against the maker. We cannot concur in this view. There was testimony on which to base the instruction to the jury. We think that the case was properly left to them upon the theory of a warranty, and that the plaintiff was under no obligation to prosecute the collection of the note. Huntington v. Wellington, 12 Mich. 10; Clark v. Roberts, 26 Mich. 506; Taylor v. Soper, 53 Mich. 96. The representations had no reference to the financial condition of the maker of the note in the future. They referred to his condition at that time, and were positive that he was then financially responsible, and that the note was then good. They constituted a warranty of the then financial condition of the maker, and, if relied on by plaintiff, entitled him to recover. ’

Other question's were raised upon the admissibility of evidence and charge of the court, but we find nothing in them important to mention. The sole issue of fact was whether the representations were made, and this issue was submitted to the jury in a brief and clear charge.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 N.W. 489, 111 Mich. 239, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knauss-v-major-mich-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack